Socio-economic issues surrounding PPR prevention and control. T. Kimani Socio economist FAO ECTAD

Transcription

1 Socio-economic issues surrounding PPR prevention and control T. Kimani Socio economist FAO ECTAD

2 Socio economic issues within PPR control dialogue Justification for PPR control Why PPR and not other livestock diseases? Impacts of disease Who is affected & how? Monetary and non monetary, Perceptions of producers, government and donors on PPR impacts (governments and private sector)» Do they think they should intervene? Costs and benefits of different control strategies?» Which one yields highest returns to investment? Opportunity costs? Feasibility of the different control options vis a vis response capacity Who is going to pay? Public versus private good potential for economies of scale and scope in terms of the costs and benefits of successfully delivering large scale and integrated interventions (multiple disease approach) the opportunities for synergizing delivery modes

3 Socio economic issues within PPR control dialogue Beyond benefit cost analysis Understanding The different roles played by small ruminants» livelihoods, poverty, asset portfolios, products and services Diversity of farming systems» holding sizes; agro ecological/environment; goals of production; movement and trade patterns, risk parameters» Diverse systems and roles implies that people have divergent motivations for being involved in shoats,

4 Socio economic issues within PPR control dialogue Place of small ruminants within livestock policies/strategies/programmes» How to raise the profile of small ruminants in the livestock development agenda» How to make countries and communities prioritize PPR» Identifying ways in which governments can improve interventions and institutionalize them» Financing strategies are also critical Designing people centered approaches the value chains, incentives, disincentives» Control approaches that integrate people as solvers of problems.» How to engage people in PPR prevention and control: the opportunities and the limitations.

5 Socio economic issues within PPR control dialogue A thorough understanding of these SEC issues is important in developing appropriate approaches to PPR control and prevention Few socio economic assessments have been undertaken Limited to impacts of disease only Control measures impacts and other SEC issues have not been adequately assessed Why? Low capacity of livestock Ministry in terms of technical skills in livestock/animal health economics Inadequate epidemiological data ( morbidity and mortality and impacts of control on these two paameters).

6 Economic justification for PPR prevention and control Demonstrating how PPR control fits as an integral component of wider livestock development efforts within the agenda of Reducing poverty. Building resilience (HOA) Reducing the number of food insecure people Improving the livelihoods of small holder livestock keepers An increased need to protect this asset from PPR fits within these agendas. Making people, livelihoods, poverty, gender rather than pathogens take centre stage.

7 Small ruminants: diverse products and roles Tangible Intangible Products By products Benefits Meat Bank Milk Manure and Fertilizer Smooth out cash flows Skins and hides Fiber and wool Fuel and biogas Horns Weed control Risk reduction and diversification Pathway out of poverty Shock buffer and resilience Food security All the products are cornerstones for food, nutritional, income, and livelihood security

8 Small ruminant systems & livelihoods 27% of the 1.9 billion Shoats are in Africa 1/1.9 is at risk of PPR= 53% 98% is small holder household level In pastoral systems of the HOA, livestock products produced and consumed at household level, annually account for as high as 63% of the annual kilocalories based on a 2100 kcal daily requirement Policy makers focus more on meat and milk magnitudes and values Other products/services & roles are difficult to measure and value, not considered in evaluation of impacts and control benefits. People with small ruminants have a weak or no existent political voice, limited access to public resources

9 Case studies Kenya, Pastoral livelihoods (2008) Morbidity rate 73% Mortality rate 57 to 60%. Tanzania, agro pastoral and mixed farming (2012) Sample 218 households Morbidity rate 54% Mortality rate 39%.

10 Turkana Pastoral Livelihoods: Prior to PPR Wealth group * Very poor Poor Middle Better-off Percent in population HH size Camels Cattle Shoats TLU ** < >16.6 Annual HH income (Ksh) Percentage of income originating from: Livestock & products Bush products Social support External (NGO) support

11 Impact of PPR: Depletion of livestock assets 100 Livestock Head Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Very Poor Poor Middle Better-off Small ruminants Normal Year Cattle / Camel Normal Year Small ruminants Impact Cattle / Camel Impact Poor and very poor lost: % shoats Middle and better off :65-80% shoats Cattle holdings were affected due to increased reliance on markets

12 . PPR increases poverty levels Before PPR Now Poor and Very Poor Middle B etter-off Increased the % of the poor and very poor increased by 10%

13 Eroding sustainability of livelihoods TLU per HH 20 Sustainable herd size Sustainable HH herd has ~150 shoats, mixed herd of e.g. 10 cattle and goats sustainable livelihood 2 0 % HH Before PPR Now Puts households in a desperate situation with increased reliance On coping mechanisms (+ and - ) and decreased ability to meet their basic needs.

14 Impact on food intake and food sources food intake in better off wealth group Shift in the food sources: Year 1 Eating of PPR infected carcasses Year 2 Increased reliance on food markets/wild food % of daily needs (2,000 Kcal/day/pers) Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Very Poor Poor Middle Better-off Milk Meat Purchase / Barter / Exchange Wild Food Labour Social Support Food aid shoats milk consumed dropped to 0%; Increased consumption of dead animals ( sign of acute food crises ) Increased reliance on wild fruits and markets for food.

15 Impact of PPR on income and sources 20,000 Ksh per HH per year 16,000 12,000 8,000 4,000 0 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Very Poor Poor Middle Better-off Livestock sale / barter Livestock product Bush product Social support CFW Survival threshold LLH protection threshold

16 WEST POKOT MARAKW ET W Plot date: April 15, 2008 nil N S E WEST POKOT MARAKW ET W Plo t date: Apr il 15, 2008 n il N S E W EST POKOT MARAKW ET Plot date: April 15, 2008 nil W N S E National Park Service Alaska Su pport O ffice GIS Team What if a national PPR prevention system was in place before 2006? PPR IN KENYA PPR Status 2006 PPR Status 2007 PPR Status TURKANA TURKANA TURKANA MANDERA MANDERA MANDERA MARSABIT MARSABIT MARSABIT WAJIR WAJIR WAJIR SAMBURU BARINGO SAMBURU BARINGO SAMBURU BARINGO LAIKIP IA LAIKIP IA LA IK IP IA IJAR A IJAR A IJA R A 10 m vaccinated A benefit cost analysis of instituting a NPS over five years for PPR, FMD, & HPAI undertaken Estimated discounted annual costs = 9.4 USD in year 1 and decreases to US$ 5.8 million in year 5 NPV for PPR was USD 14.1 million, BCR was 1.35 and IRR was 0.12.

17 Conclusions Data available makes a case for PPR control However, Our understanding of the full economic effect that PPR and its control have on individuals, households, and nations needs to be improved to target interventions more effectively and equitably. all SEC issues need to be considered in strategy formulation